Re: [linux-audio-user] Finale for Linux - Linux-audio-user

13 Jul 2004

...
  -----Original Message-----
 From: Chris Pickett [mailto:chris.pickett@mail.mcgill.ca]
 Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 05:06 PM
 To: 'A list for linux audio users'
 Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Finale for Linux

 RickTaylor(a)Speakeasy.Net wrote:
  On 12-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote:
 }  Just a clarification: everything is copyrighted, unless it is explicitly 
 }  released into the public domain.  That's why these licenses work.

  I'm familiar with copyrights. :} Artists have been using them since, maybe,
 before programmers.  
 You did say, "linux audio... copyrighted stuff to
 pretty much excluded," and later, "Much of that software is
 copyrighted," so I don't think that was particularly unfair.

  }  The truncated paragraph said:
 }  
 }  "However, non-free software companies often want to create vendor
 }  lock-in, and they've shown a good way to do this is to decrease
 }  interoperability between programs and flexibility in the system.  They
 }  allow for only one box per program, and furthermore make one subscribe
 }  to their whole subsystem of boxes to get something usable.  It's like
 }  when Lego started making wall pieces instead of just individual blocks
 }  to build them."

  You mean like the idea that Jack works with only a select set of programs?  
 I wasn't aware that Jack not operating with all programs was a
 competitive thing, and involved money or patents or nasty licensing at 
 all ... I thought it was because other apps simply hadn't caught up yet. 
   I guess I'll have to read about it a bit. 
 Don't get too serious about it... I just tossed that out as an example. It's
probably a bad one. It "is" simply for the sake of discussion. I'm not
sugggesting that there's anything evil afoot. 

 Why do other programs need to "catch up" with a program that's designed to
enable them?

...
   }  I realize
the Lego analogy is a little broken.
 }  
 }  Anyway, at the end of the day, if Linux Audio started to need non-free 
 }  stuff to be good, I'd just buy a Mac.  For me, the core of what makes 

  Linux has always included a large number of non-free programs. If you're
 obsessive like I am and run around checking out every available program that
 a given platform has to offer... Linux can include a very large number of
 traditionally copyrighted and commercial programs. I think linux needs to
 include a number of large commercial offerings like those solutions provided by
 Oracle and IBM. {Money... and all of the benefits that might be derived from
 it.}  
 I think those kind of things can help corporations who have more money 
 than time to throw at a problem, but am unclear as to the benefit that 
 the ordinary user derives from them, although it probably exists. 
 :} Trickle down software economics.

 In this case I think it has some basis in fact:

 "Sgi has a fairly large corporate structure in place... they devlop software. They
have the means to make software that is "Sgi-like" {for lack of a better word.}
If they give you their software {which is a unique product of their capabilities, market
and experiences.} and you give them yours in return... everyone benefits."

 You use their tools to make a buck... you benefit. 

 You both benefit at different levels.

...
    To me... the
variety of choices available on linux is much more important than
 the open source thing... The copyleft idea strikes me as a really usable and
 actually somewhat noble alternative to a traditional corporate structure... The
 idea of an entirely open source strikes me as a bit dillettante and maybe a bit
 too high minded and idealistic to be practical. It's simply too open to
 politics, cliquishness and similar sorts of abuse {even racism... see Elvis} to
 be practical. {:} 'Course I sometimes feel this way about the internet itself.
 I'm probably wrong in those feelings. I don't think I am in my feelings about
 "open source".}  
 To my knowledge, my system is entirely open source, with the exception
 of acroread and flash, and it runs well.  On the desktop, I think 
 paid-for corporate involvement can help with unification efforts, 
 packaging, and hardware support issues, but that it's better if the 
 changes are freed eventually. 
 I'm thinking that both flash and pdf are pretty nice additions to linux. I don't
think the changes can help but be "freed" occasionally. {Regardless of
license.}

 Maybe we need to specify what we mean by "open source".

...
   }  the whole
thing tick and even worth using at all (ignoring the wonderful 
 }  unix-y benefits that Macs now have too) is that it's free.  I think the 
 }  reaction, "Everyone else is releasing free stuff, you can bloody well 
 }  release free stuff too!" isn't entirely unjustified.  As for music 

  I think it's totally unjustified and that it's that very attitude that is at
 the heart of the problem I described above.  
 I give away free time to F/OSS, and have made less-than-profitable 
 career choices (i.e. grad school) so that I could hack on free software, 
 why should I be expected to receive with open arms people who want to 
 build upon this free base and not give back, let alone _pay_ for it? 
 Because you made that choice?

...
   }  shareware
developers, frankly I think they'd have a better time writing
 }  for OS X anyway, as a real shareware community actually exists.

  Then they should just go away?  
 I think corporations are the only ones really willing to pay for
 individual applications on Linux.  I'm personally not shelling out for
 shareware when I can read, test, and contribute to free software.  Time
 is money, I guess, and that's how I'd like to pay, even if it costs me 
 more after the conversion (which indicates "libre" is more important 
 than "gratis" to me).  I think other people feel the same way. 
 I had the impression they have nothing to do with each other

...
  So, yes, from a business perspective, shareware
developers for Linux 
 should go away and target OS X instead.  From an ethical perspective, as 
 long as I'm not forced to use it and there always exist alternatives, I 
 guess I don't mind.  I start to mind when everybody just uses the 
 non-free stuff and this results in the death of otherwise good free 
 projects.

 Like Tim just said, I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree, 
 since I'm not likely to convince you that 100% free is a good and 
 realistic thing, and you're not likely to convince me otherwise (I know 
 _I'm_ starting to repeat myself).  I hope at least we can see a little 
 where the other is coming from now :) 
  :} Tim's message was first in the queue. I answered this there.